The media has moved on from foreclosures as the nation’s primary economic crisis. They are reading into numbers that Wall Street is putting out in those areas where Wall Street decision makers have temporarily reduced foreclosures. This is a calculated effort by Wall Street to manage the news. The truth is that there will be another 5-7 million foreclosures over the next 5 years displacing another 15 million people from their lives and homes. Some states, like Florida, have eliminated funding for a rocket docket program of dubious value or constitutionality. The paradox is that the lie about “declining foreclosures” might help get cases heard on the merits where the homeowner’s challenge to ownership and balance is taken seriously.

Once upon a time investigative journalism was considered the height of the profession of journalists. But editors in both the written and video media have essentially opted out of the foreclosure crisis and Wall Street corruption, like the manipulation of the precious metal markets by the big banks. Nobody is asking the obvious question: why are the banks even in the precious metal markets and how did they get control? Is that where the money went that they stole from the American economy and other world economies?

More than half the states reported increases in bank repossessions, and Vermont led the way with a 280% year-over-year increase (of course, in Vermont, where there are fewer people than in the District of Columbia, it only took an increase of 12 repossessions to get that 280% jump).

Montreaux serves as a reminder that a trial court can only enforce or take action on issues pled or litigated—expressly or impliedly—by parties. As such, foreclosure plaintiffs should place the issue of assessments before the trial court. Only then may the trial court enter a final judgment adjudicating assessments….Montreaux at Deerwood Lake Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., _ So. 3d _, 2014 WL 7183213 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 18, 2014)

[Editor’s Note: The same issues upon which homeowners with few resources are winning against banks, the better financed homeowners’ association and condominium associations can foreclose against the homeowner, the “bank” or both. There are hundreds of transactions per month in which investors are buying up the lien rights of homeowners associations. Both the association and the homeowner are failing to see the forest. In Florida the foreclosing bank can neither delay the foreclosure nor ignore the declaration of condominium after foreclosure — they owe the assessments and can be easily foreclosed.]

A large share of the deaths (37 percent) happened within two weeks of a specific housing crisis, such as an eviction notice or court hearing. The overwhelming majority of these suicides (79 percent) took place before the renters or owners actually lost their housing.

[Editor’s Note: The CDC is pointing out that the result of these foreclosures is frequently suicide and it is obvious that the foreclosures have also resulted in more divorces, more poverty, more food stamps, more aid to the poor, increasing levels of poverty and a strain on our consumer related economy. Some of the suicides have been first, murder of the entire family, then suicide. If the foreclosures were inevitable it could be argued that is the price of a free society. But the truth is that between 65% and 95% of all foreclosures are fraudulent, propped up by a government that believes that the failure of the banks is worse than the failure of the people to survive — literally].

15 Responses

I cited this as part of wilhelm:
“No transfer of the instrument occurs under Section 3-203(a) until it is delivered to Y.” and
“Although the document may be effective to give Y a claim of ownership of the instrument…”

Maybe a note isn’t transferred until delivery for the purpose of enforcement, which is the issue being addressed by the wilhelm court, but there has nonetheless been a conveyance in the purchase and sale agreement (to the extent of the identification of a loan), despite any non-delivery. Further, the court only speaks to article
3-203(a), not any other applicable provisions of the UCC which might find, as necessary and as applicable (key words) a right of enforcement based on a purchase and sale agreement. Reminder: art 3 deals in
notes as negotiable instruments and endorsements on notes and imo does NOT preclude their sale and assignment in an agreement, nor even speak to it. In other words, art 3 puts no restriction on the manner of movement of a note, and in fact imo is called upon in the absence of an agreement evidencing a conveyance. That’s an oversimplification of art 3, but for this discussion of a past event, I think it gets the job done.

” Importantly, however, if a person “proves the transaction” by
which it acquired the note, but fails to show possession, he or
she cannot enforce the note. See generally 11 Am. Jur. 2d Bills
and Notes § 210 (2009) (discussing differences between a “holder”
of a note, and an “owner” of a note). Again, the statutory
comments explain:

[A] person who has an ownership right in an instrument
might not be the person entitled to enforce the
instrument. For example, suppose X is the owner and
holder of an instrument payable to X. X sells the
instrument to Y but is unable to deliver immediate
possession to Y. Instead, X signs a document* conveying
all of X’s right, title and interest in the instrument
to Y. Although the document may be effective to give Y
a claim of ownership of the instrument, Y is not the
person entitled to enforce the instrument until Y obtains possession
of the instrument. No transfer of the instrument occurs
under Section 3-203(a) until it is delivered to Y.”

I think we’ve been making the wrong arguments and asking the wrong questions (which gets, it’s said, wrong answers).

The quot is from a case (wilhelm, idaho 2009) we’ve all forgotten about if we read it. What I’m getting from this, for one (with my new look) is that even if the *psa / an incorporated by ref part of the psa sells and assigns our loans to a trust, the psa is thus a document which would “prove the transaction by which it (the trust) acquired the note”.
I believe the psa then, if all to be done were done, conveys the seller’s interests to the trust and this would be, as necessary (but is it?), consistant with one article or another of the UCC.
So after the execution of the psa, the trust has “acquired” the note.
But, the trust has no right to enforce until it has taken poss of the note.
A question I can’t answer just now is “does the trust have the right to payment prior to delivery of the note?” I think I can say the seller doesn’t, for lack of interest since he’s conveyed his. It’s prob safe to say the trust has a right to payment by way of the conveyance to it, but I don’t know so fwiw won’t posit one way or another.
(We’re generally concerned with who has the right to enforce, but we do care about the right to payment because the note says it may only be enforced by one who has done two things: 1) takes the note by transfer and 2) is entitled to payment.)
But where I’m going is this: if the psa is a document which conveys the seller’s interest to the trust, why is “mers” executing ** as a CURRENT EVENT** an assignment of (both the note) and the dot?
Banksters argue and courts agree (yawn) we have no standing to argue the assignment to a late trust. Maybe the real argument is
that the loan was already conveyed years ago to a trust. After all,
the trust has to have some docs somewhere, don’t they, establishing its assets, and that’s the psa or a doc incorporated by reference to therein.

**Is that trust documents buy 50 million worth of unidentified loans? Isn’t it really that loans are identified and the only thing missing is delivery of notes in IDENTIFIED loans?

And noteworthy, also, imo is that just as the psa doesn’t confirm possession / delivery, neither does a ‘mers’ assignment, so why the mers’ assgt years after the loan were actually conveyed in another document? I think part 1 of an argument I can’t fully frame is that the trust had assets and some document singularly in someone else’s possession identifies them, and we’re looking to understand why then is an assgt being done today as a current event? Why not just show up with the document of conveyance (the psa schedule of loans) and
also demonstrate poss of the note? Why purport the assgt is a current event? Imo if / since the conveyance already occurred in the psa,
the mers assgt of a thing as a current event is a false document.
Mers can’t do anything with notes imo, but what mers may do if not must do is record something which abandons, for benefit of public record / notice, the one and only interest mers’ claims, namely the alleged “title” (only) to the interests created in the dot. Mers doesn’t claim ben interest.
Since the beneficial interest was already conveyed in the psa, that’s all mers has to “comment on” in public record. It can’t purport to assign the ben interest, it may only relinquish this new freak of commerce,
“title” to those interests. No such instrument currently known to man
effectuates such a relinquishment of “title” only, so they’d have to craft one.
Great, but all this would leave public record bare of reference to all the interests of both the trust and those along the way to the trust. The fix is the 1) recordation of all assignments of a particular loan up to the psa and 2) the recordation of the psa to establish the conveyance of the loan to the trust, which was not accomplilshed by an individual
sale and assigment but as part of a bulk transaction in the psa.

Even if mers were the beneficiary for all involved, the conveyances to the trust were done years ago by way of other agreements (the psa’s), so why is a mers assignment of an individual loan recited as a current event? Oh, wait. Were some of those conveyances, the ones prior to the one to the trust in the psa, done only on the mers system or ——— not at all?

In response to the
So what are you doing about and with all this information ……. what are you doing besides talking?

My opinion is
(cause opinions are only important to those that make them)
What am I doing?

I live my life.
I do what I do.

I have no time for conflict so I don’t engage nor feed the emotional and energy vampires.

Right now I’m typing.

I don’t recall giving anyone authority to tell me what to do with information I have.

No one has authority to tell me whether to share or keep, or have any other use for what I’ve seen or know, and no one is going to start now.

What I have experienced on this blog
is
when I touch close to certain subjects,
I get responses that let me know I’m affecting something.

I can’t tell if the responders are paid to detract, distract, or not, but there is an interest in tearing down people as if we are required to have solutions for others who come here or have to have solutions to comment here.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s Neil’s site, so let him come up with the solution, he lives in their world, and is licensed to live in it.

Remember, get your legal advice from an attorney, the rest is entertainment.

I’m no one’s God, nor savior, I don’t give legal advice, and I don’t claim to know anything beyond what I experienced and that’s subject to the knowledge I have to interpret the experience I had at any given point and time.

This is the only time I’ll respond on this subject. I do know how to ignore people who steal energy any way they can.

May your future do you well, I will not respond to comments such as those again.

@ a-man The only Jews that make it to the FRC, or their distinct branches are the ashkenazi jews that forgot about the old testament when they started on wall street. It is simply a blame game. The Jews don’t control this country – the WASP’s have had it on lock-down since its creation.

So what are you doing about and with all this information youve gathered besides sharing it here and the information does not help the issues facing most people who are fighting this injustice,so again what are you doing besides talking?

The challenge was also written in the answer to the purported suit, which I’m sure she didn’t read.

it was cookie cutter eviction.

One of those, the plaintiff would not pay court costs to evict unless there was a landlord tenant agreement of some sort.

That kind of thought process.

In a landlord tenant agreement, a contract is always in the middle and both parties disagree on the obligations of that contract and one wants to terminate the contract and make the other leave the premises.

That’s standard landlord tenant stuff.

We didn’t experience landlord tenant agreements.
We were forced out by ‘unknown persons’.

How many people were forced out when there was no landlord/tenant agreement between the Plaintiff and named Defendant in these courts?

Thus all those settlements where no one can seem to find any information within them to prosecute.

I still have the Florida Attorney General handout that lead to the 50/49/48 state foreclosure settlement.

The Texas Attorney General Cease and Desist Letter sample and public notice.

I still have the Civil action filed by the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on Dec 1, 2011, stating the type of action was
Unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of M.G. I. c.93A

it was box checked that it was NOT a jury case.
docket No 11-4363
Trial Court of Massachusetts
Superior Court Department
County:SUFFOLK

Unfortunately this is all to true and it hits to close to home. Those who have been on LL since the beginning know all to well we have lost some from this site. We are currently worried about Linda..aka. .Ivent. .aka. .Stripes. Please if anyone has seen her on another site let us know.